Letters

Dear Christis,

After reading the article by Adam Chacksfield in the last issue of Christis there was left a rather bitter taste in the mouth. It maybe good for Adam to give his ideas of Liberalism, coming as is evident from the article, from a background that gains from liberal economic and social policies; and although I wish not to condemn Adam as a Christian for holding these particular views, I would like just to attract his attention on the article and to give another viewpoint some food for thought.

The main argument that he uses in the article is that God gave us free will. We must put this into the context that it was used — unfortunately Adam refrains to give us the source of this implicit assumption. The Bible and other sources can be very deceitfully interpreted without the the use of the context, and this is what I believe Adam has achieved in his article. With the perveted assumption it is then possible to follow the argument through to the political end that Adam is so clearly intending that the Market is the Christian’s Utopia. This goes against the nature of the article which claims that “the Church has become too interested in politics.”

The free will that is God given is true enough — but isn’t this because God lives within us all — by being with us God has allowed us to be free from sin as opposed to Adam’s free will of being able to sin. When this fact is established it is possible to encourage other systems of order socialist, capitalist or otherwise that enable the kingdom of Heaven to be created on Earth. Free will is one of God’s greatist gifts but to abuse it in the way that Adam suggests — to move away from an equal and just society of an Earthly heaven is not the actions of a truly devoted Christian.

”Liberal” Christian

Dear Christis,

I am writing to object to the blasphemous nature of Adam Chacksfield’s article “A Christian Defence of Liberalism”. In his article Adam states that “If God had wanted the state to remove individual responsibility he would have denied us free will”. I am sure that Adam does not need reminding that ‘The State’ is composed of people, it is not a completely impersonal institution that operates independently of people. Therefore, if God had denied people free will then the State would not be able to remove individual responsibility since the people of whom the state consists would not have the free will to be able to make such decisions about the lives of individual people. Adam’s claim that “If God had wanted the state to remove individual responsibility he would have denied us free will” amounts to accusing God of stupidity since such a tactic would not have the stated effect. To accuse God of stupidity is surely the very height of blasphemy.

Adam’s claim that “God gave us free will” has no foundation in the Christian Biblical tradition. The Biblical evidence suggests not that God gave people free will but that people took free will for themselves (Genesis 3). This phenomenon is known as “The Fall”. Christianity is about resurrection (rising again) not accepting the fact that we’ve fallen and trying to make the best of it. Just as people’s fall was the grasping of free will to themselves, so their rise (or resurrection) will be the sacrifice of some of that individual free will so that, collectively, people can live more freely and in greater co-operation with one another.

Dave Ball

Dear Christis,

I write in reference to the article on modern day slavery in the last issue of your magazine. I am sure that racism was not intended, but I would like to draw your attention to the use of the term “Fagin-like” in the article.

The term “Fagin” has been used in the past as a colloquial euphemism for mean, grasping, miserly and a thief. It has also been employerd as a euphemism for “Jew” as applied in a colloquial, derogatory and racist sense. The extent to which both these terms have been institutionalised is reflected in the fact that until very recently, the defenition of a “Jew” in the Oxford English Dictionary included all of the above — it took many years of campaigning to alter this. To employ the ostensibly more subtle “Fagin-like” merely evades the issue, and by drawing upon the common racist culture which English speaking/educated peoples share, further institutionalises the hidden messages that serve to validate racism. Simultaneously the presence of such and expression in such a magazine as yours — ostensibly liberal and caring — validates the attitude that when people object to the derogatory terms bandied thoughtlessly around (i.e. “nigger”,”jew”,”paddy”) they are “over-reacting”, and should learn either to “turn-the-other-cheek” or learn to laugh at themselves and their own oppression. To find htis in a religious and “Christian” newspaper is unnerving.

This letter is not intended as a personal attack on the author of the article as I believe that as much (if not more) responsibility rests with the editors/compilers of the magazine. Hence I do not particularly wish this letter to be printed (although I would appreciate a printed apology in the editorial of the next issue), but hope rather to provoke thought and discussion.

Farah Mendlesohn

Editor’s Note: The Christis editorial board meets weekly to discuss the articles and we were not aware that the term “Fagin-like” could be have any racist connotations. Taken in the context of the paragraph it is merely written to refer to gangs of money-grabbers and pickpockets, as in the Dickens novel “Oliver Twist”. However, we apologise for any offence caused by this article.

This letter is being forwarded to the author of the “Slavery Today” article and we hope to publish her reply in a future issue of Christis.